Understanding India and Pakistan’s intriguing terrorism discourses

ABSTRACT

Why do India and Pakistan always quarrel over terrorism? The prevailing arguments more often implicate intriguing South Asian geopolitics surrounding the unresolved Kashmir dispute or pathological partition of British India in 1947 to explain this puzzle. Surprisingly, why and how the two countries verbalise terrorism has hardly been investigated in a comparative framework as a potential underpinning of this historical syndrome. This void has deprived South Asia’s existing literature and public and policy debates of an understanding of the underlying determinants of the terrorism discourse. Namely, how has the discourse originated, what are its distinct metaphysics, and how it has shaped and normalised discursive practices at significant moments in the history of these two countries, and with what consequences? This article responds to these broader questions. It argues that among other vital underpinnings, the Indo-Pakistan terrorism discourse, with its origins in colonialism, functions to institute and enable rival practices of exclusionary politics, doublespeak and propaganda. More importantly, it nurtures self-fulfilling concepts of statehood deriving from a constructed “real” reality characterising an imagined geopolitical pathology that, in turn, perpetuates Indo-Pakistan imperialism. In addressing this argument, the paper makes multiple original contributions, including identifying research avenues and indicating various intersecting causes of friction that afford reconciliation possibilities to the stakeholders.

KEYWORDS:

• South asia
• colonialism
• terrorism discourse
• geopolitics
• Kashmiri and Sikh terrorists
• discursive constructions and practices
• two-nation theory
• Hindutva

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Drs. Muhammad Shoaib Pervez and Abida Bano, the two anonymous reviewers, and Prof Lee Jarvis for their critical comments, which added greater clarity to this article. Prof Richard Jackson is particularly thanked for the logistical support to render the manuscript its present shape.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. This impression is based on receiving more than 1100 hits from the search of keyword terrorism on Strategic Analysis.

2. For a sample of questions, read (Jackson 2005, 25).

3. For this information, visit the digital archival database available at https://www.readex.com/products/world-newspaper-archive. Also, visit the British Newspaper archive, which is available at https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk.

4. For more information on these newspapers, read (D. C. Sharma 1985).

5. For a complete debate among lords and Colonial ministers, read Outrages in India-HANSARD 1803–2005:Lords Sittings in the 1931. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1931/nov/24/outrages-in-india

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1931/nov/24/outrages-in-india.

6. See VISCOUNT ElIBANK, Outrages in India-HANSARD 1803–2005:Lords Sittings in the 1931. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1931/nov/24/outrages-in-india

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1931/nov/24/outrages-in-india.

7. Read a discussion about “Province of Bengal,” Column 149, outrages in India-HANSARD 1803–2005:Lords Sittings in the 1931. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1931/nov/24/outrages-in-india

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1931/nov/24/outrages-in-india.

8. For docile bodies, read (Toros and Mavelli 2013).

9. For example, watch Family Man, Sacred Game, Bard of Blood, CAT, Haider.

10. Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, https://www.ma-law.org.pk/pdflaw/SUPPRESSION%20OF%20TERRORIST%20ACTIVITIES.pdf

11. For a definition of terrorism and details, see Amman Message Islam’s Position on Extremism, Radicalism, And Terrorism, Declaration 154, 2006 Amman, Jordan, pp.143–144; Organised crime and terrorism: Toward a comprehensive approach, an OIC document, New Nation [Bangladesh Daily]. May 10. 2005; Ghayoor Ahmed, What is terrorism and what is not, Dawn March. 24 2005.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Muhammad Feyyaz

Muhammad Feyyaz holds a PhD in politics from Queen’s University, UK, and an MPhil in peace and conflict studies from National Defence University (NDU), Islamabad. He also holds multiple certifications, notably in Negotiations and Dispute Resolution from Harvard University USA and Defence against Terrorism from the NATO Centre of Excellence in Ankara. Besides, he has taught at various universities in Pakistan and the country’s apex civil and military institutions, namely NDU and the National School of Public Policy Lahore. His research interests lie at the intersection of metaphysical and critical approaches to research and pedagogy and the theory and practice of persistent political violence, especially terrorism, politics of counterterrorism, civil war, and insurgency.

Sadaf Husnain Bari

Sadaf Husnain Bari holds an M.phil in Development Economics and Public Policy from Beaconhouse National University, Pakistan, and a Master’s in Economics from Government College University, Lahore. She has taught at two private universities in Pakistan and worked as a researcher with the Institute of Public Policy, Lahore. Her research focuses on the economic aspects of political violence. She also edits, creates, and designs graphics for corporate documentaries and commercial ads.